I recently had the Canon FD 50mm 1.2 L series to test out and just fell in love with it. It's cool to see the evolved RF version, I'd love to see how those two lenses compare over the years for mirrorless use. Nice thing about the canon Mirrorless is they're bringing FD's back to Canon digital. Nice video mate!
Agree to both of you. At this point in my photography journey, I care more about the philosophical and art side of photography and care less about gears. It is more interesting to see the "why" and "how" aspect of a photograph (or photographer) than what gear to use or what this gear can do, etc.
@@raymondtan2415 Yes, Sean is also a great source of information, from my point of view Ted has a lot of talent, but from several month to now there is almost all gears related videos, very few in the art direction.
Michael G sounds like you don’t really need to splurge money on the RF lenses as you’ve already got a cracking line up there! Unless you’re doing video and could use the image stabilised lenses...
This lens is an optical tour the force, and it’s especially impressive that it has decent autofocus. But it’s heavy, big and indiscrete. This lens is more at home in the studio, and I’m not, so I like portable and unobtrusive. I’d much prefer an f/1.4 or f/1.8 with a more manageable weight and size.
@@joejackson9986 No, I don't take pictures of people who expect to be unobserved, I don't peek through windows either. I occasionally do some street photography, but I mostly use my cameras for travel photography. If I think an image could be embarrassing for someone it gets deleted. I just don't want to take images of people responding to the equipment I'm carrying, so I keep it small.
If you’re impressed by the 50, the 85s will blow your socks off. I do street photography with the 50. Tried it once with the RF 85, my arms were aching the next day.
Could you comment a little more on your experience using the rf 50 f1.2 for street photography? I like the idea, but I thought it might too cumbersome and heavy. What are your thoughts?
Please do a video on MTF charts. These have been a dark art for me and I would love it if you could apply your trademark style in simplifying it for the masses.
I just ordered this lens can’t wait to try it, I already have the 24-105 and 24-240 RF and was looking for a faster prime, I thought about waiting for a cheaper 50mm in RF but this lens has been getting such stellar reviews I figured why not.
Thanks Ted. Good review. I personally was impressed in many ways with the EOS R. I like how it can be customized and at least the body is a relatively small package. Each to their own. The price of the R system lenses is the only real concern at present.
I actually really love the STM version of the 50mm 1.8 better than the 1.4 When I finally get the EOS R I can't wait to invest in RF Glass.. I'd shoot that 50 1.2 RF stopped down and wide open.
Have to admit that I prefer a lens with aperture 1.4 because there is not much difference between the bokehens between them, and then the lens with aperture 1.4 is lighter and smaller and not least cheaper!
Great review! Love the details. I went with the rf 85 1.2 first as I get more unique photos in my style. But getting the rf 50 1.2 next as the 50mm is a better walk-around focal for me. Combine that with the 135mm, what a combo
I really cant wait for Canon to come out with a legitimate RF Body that has IBIS, a much better eye AF, 10-20 FPS, highres mode.... basically all the things sony and panasonic cameras can do
Eye AF already is as good since the last update I would say. A general IBIS is worse then a specific lense integration, but a IBIS combination is about to come which will push the whole thing even further. Canon definitely won over the competition with their new mount and RF system. The quality of the new lenses are so extreme, that those alone a worth switching
The RF 50mm was my 2nd lens after the 24-105mm kit lens. Absolutely love it. Don't know if I would have gone for the RF 85mm instead if it were available back then though.
Wow, going manual focus with Voigtlander 50mm 1.2 on my SL was a great move, that thing is a behemoth, need a wagon to drag it around. Very surprised it venyets, none of that in the Voigtlander wide open.
This is definitely a five stars Canon lens, no other lens can match it at the moment in terms of images. If I have the cash to buy Canon R setup, I would buy this lens first.
only problem is for full frame i find 50mm is a bit too wide for portraits. its great for cropped but i got the sony 50mm f1.8 FE and i found it just didnt have that "pop" of compression and quality overall that a 50mm lens did on a cropped so for full frame and portraits id HIGLY recommend a 85mm instead. though i "might" get the ziess 55mm f1.8 someday for sony lol BUT if you are short on funds and want ONE lens for portraits for full frame id go for at least a 85mm or even 135mm
I own the Otus 85 and 28 ef mount lenses along with the milvus 100. In your opinion, would it be worth it to sell these lenses for RF mount 85 and 50 lenses?
I have a question, does your RF lens work noiselessly? Because I have 24-105 / 4 and you can't hear him when AF works. Recently I used RF 50 / 1.2 and you could hear how it works. Is it normal ? When filming, a noisy mechanism may be irritating. I know that RF1,8 is working loud, but 1,2, I think it should work noiselessly.
5:27 You use the term 'large spherical highlights' to describe the bokeh. Since you're looking at a 2D image here, I can only assume that you're being metaphorical or intuitive, reading 2D cues to 3D imagery. I once got deeply into 3D photography using stereo shots; took 2 closeup shots (each slightly rotated around the focal point) of a spider in a web of dewdrops. The droplets made beautiful bokeh in the out-of-focus background. Indeed, looking at the stereo images with a home-made stereo viewer, I could clearly see that the bokeh look like *spherical* bubbles, not in the plane of each dewdrop! In 3D, it looks like a random pile of translucent, lightly-tinted marbles or pearls. So, how did you know?
I’d also like to point out that this lens is only about 0.5 lb heavier than the 24-105 RF so if people have that and find the weight acceptable this isn’t too much more.
I have a t3i, guessing this will not fit? I have been meaning to upgrade cameras and/or get a decent lens for night photos whichever is more cost effective. Was looking at the EOS 5D Mark IV any suggestions?
Hey man, really enjoying the series so far and I have a video request/idea. Pleeeeease make a video about micro contrast. Nobody ever talks about this and it is imho the most important aspect of what makes a lens good. I think this series would be perfect to explain micro contrast.
Mc_Pancake I purchased the RF 50 1.2L used from lens authority for $1,580 right after Christmas and it is awesome. Bought the 24-105 F4L too at the same time for $680
Gosh Ted, that's 2 videos you've called the EOS R strange. That's the determination to separate this from all the cameras out there? At least you qualified it this time "as a little strange". Canon bravely came out w/ camera that tried to play outside the box in their very first iteration of mirrorless. I do own this camera, was formerly a 5Dmk2 owner, so there's my bias, but I do love this camera for MANY reasons, have even optioned the sometime irritating multi-function bar to two very useful functions; and never liked joysticks anyway. But to take beautiful pictures, w/ incredible lenses - heck, don't find it that strange anywhere near as much as fantastic. Thanks for your take on the NOT-so-thrifty-fifty.
In the same boat, coming from a 5d2 to EOS R. The 5D2 AF hit rate was terrible low with wide open lenses, even with silly tricks (i.e. leaning in). The R hit rate is much much higher, whether its with the 50 RF or 100-400ii, people, pets or wildlife.
You're right. This is a special purpose lens because of its weight and size. It's also not particularly enjoyable to hold (fat) or feel (plasticky). For 2 grand+, you need more from a lens that this gives. Sharpness isn't everything, especially if the actual subjects of your photographs are people.
Honestly, I'm already cospicuous enough that I didn't feel any different when I used a 70-200 f/2.8 to do street portraiture. Wouldn't have a problem using this one either, it doesn't seem *that* conspicuous to me (then again, I shoot almost only landscapes, not like I have serious experience on street photography). Bokeh looks nice but I see a lot of nervous double edges? Nothing too tragic but I expected a bit better.
Depends what type of portraits you want to shoot and how much space you have to work with. 50mm will give you a wider shot at the same distance. 50mm is useful when shooting children if you need to step forward and reposition subject or set, because you will be closer. 85mm is fantastic but you have to be further away. I prefer the images from an 85mm, but it is not always the most practical. If you are just starting your photography career, I’d suggest going with a 24-70mm 2.8. The flexibility is fantastic and will give you a good mix. I’d recommend shooting between 50-70mm to avoid distortion of facial features. Primes are amazing, but the versatility of a quality 24-70 really can’t be beat. Hope this helps.
@@romanticdonkey468 Personal always recommend going with a 50mm as it is definitely the most versatile. I have both 50 and 85 but the 85 is a lense I barely use due to just feeling limited and you usually need enough space. I don't feel like the compression difference is big enough that it is worth sacrificing the versatility .
It's crazy to me how the 50mm weighs more than the 100mm. I guess it's more to do with the fact that the front element has to be so big to run at F1.2 vs. F2.8....
Hi I'm from India and I'm planning to buy a dslr for portraits. Can you recommend which dslr should I go for ? I was thinking about 90d can you recommend me something other than that ? @theartofphotography
@B M I was thinking to buy a medium range dslr which would get me through for couple of years so I dont feel the need to upgrade if I buy a basic one. Any thoughts or suggestions ?
@@Rushabh091 I know I'm late but if you want to buy a dslr for portriats then the 90d is a great option. Pair it with a 35mm f1.4 sigma art and a 50mm 1.4 sigma art. Also buy a good zoom lens like a 24-105 or something. This kit will let you shoot almost everything for atleast 3-4 years
Yeah, gigantic penalties to be paid for modern autofocus mirrorless lenses. I think one of the biggest strengths of mirrorless is accesses to all the vintage, and modern manual focus lenses. The size are 1/5 the volume, 1/2 to 1/10th the price, superior optics, and in most cases far superior images. The portability alone is gigantic. When you compare time to manual focus a prime, vs an autofocus zoom, when you change the focal length, I’m focused, I think the zoom looses. Many people have discovered this and adapters and M glass are selling like hot cakes. Now manual lenses can be found in E mount and L mount without adapters. I’m not sure who would buy a big bloated 50 like that...one zoom 70-200 autofocus f4 in your bag for sports and wildlife, the rest fast primes in manual focus, for everything else. I’m not the only one moving to this mix. It’s what’s in the modern bag, and that zoom is almost never used.
I honestly don't know what planet you're living on, but about 90% of the professional photographers I know and work side by side with on a daily basis use 24-70 and 70-200 zooms. Some fine art photographers I've worked with rely solely on primes...but then they shoot on Hassy, not on A7 Sonys. Vintage lenses is a good idea on paper but the truth is all they can be is speciality lenses, not daily drivers. They are ok for certain jobs, not so much for others. Optical technology has progressed significantly in the last 10-15 years...few vintage lenses control aberrations as well as modern high quality glass for instance. Modern lenses are often sharper at larger apertures. There is much less distortion, too.
I find it interesting that Canon will make a 50mm 1.2 in EF mount and now in RF mount while Nikon only ever made an older manual focus 50mm 1.2 for F mount and now a freakin 50mm 0.95 Z mount lens that's 8 grand and still manual focus only. Come on Nikon just make your own version of a 50mm 1.2 god dam it.
With the newer Z mount, there is hope in seeing some f/1.2 lenses, but it may scare some Nikonians into thinking they were shooting with Canon. 😊 It is like Nikon is best in 105mm while 135mm for Canon. The new NOCT is mostly to showcase the Z mount and probably for those Nikonians who are looking for a modern version of the famous 50 f/1.2 AI.
I've got to admit, I don't understand the gushing reviews for this particular lens. Every review I've seen has fairly busy background rendering, CA, and have appeared to have fairly lifeless colors. I don't know if this has something to do with RU-vid's compression, the particular samples (which have been late fall/early winter), personal taste, or is just plain bias on my part (I shoot Sony). Strangely, I haven't felt this way at all about the other big chungus 50mm: the Panasonic S F1.4. The sample images from the Panasonic, generally, look smooth and beautiful. Would it be possible to do a rendering comparison video of your favorite rendering 50mm(or 55mm) primes? One where you go into the rendering differences you see between lenses. I'd love to see concrete examples of what makes you (and many other reviewers) enjoy this particular lens so much.
With that obsession with dof, something being lost in photography. I mean, I prefer cameras goes for larger sensors to give opportunity for experiments for lower f numbers. Ansel Adams was in that f/64 group for a reason, and we don't see that kind of attitude in modern days. Too much for commercial studio photography and sports shooting and very little space for interesting experiments etc. I mean, imagine camera with 8x10 sensor, or something like that. Amazing lens, though.
Ansel Adams founded the f/64 group to get away from the previous style, so there is no surprise that modern photographers like to get away from the past as well. Good or bad is another story and only history will tell. 😊
This is another good example for "mirrorless ist smaller and lighter": EOS 5d IV + EF 50mm 1.2 L USM = 1380g / EOS R + RF 50mm 1.2 L USM = 1610g. I'm sure, the new lens (RF 50mm 1.2 L USM) is a very good lens, but the "old" EF 50mm 1.2 L USM and the "old" EOS 5d IV together will make an equal job...and they are really lighter and not bigger. Sometimes I think, the mirrorless world is going in the wrong direction!? (Sony body's are too small and the lenses of each company got bigger and heavier)
I am not completely certain, but I think the lens had such a slim depth of field that the autofocus was worthless, the sharpness wide open was very weak, and the chromatic aberrations were pretty unacceptable.
go to LA fitness pay 10 bucks a month do 3 sets of 15 reps curls with 15lbs and in 90 days you will not feel the lens neither the camera... hell, you will have your backpack and will forget about the fact you where carrying one
The MTF charts for the EF 1,2/50mm at 10 lp/mm are totally fake. In general, the MTF charts from Canon are not worth your effort trying to read some useful information in them.
If you have the floor space to be able to step further back, then 85mm. If you shoot children and need to be closer to the subject for repositioning, then 50mm. For overall image quality, I prefer the 85.
Great review with many insights, as always. But, why not a brief nod to Canon's 50mm /0.95 "dream lens," which is only $500 more? Only if your highly touted 1.2L can match the artistry of Peter Thoeny's 0.95 work (see Flickr), then I'd opt for the latest RF mount. Otherwise, why would any serious photographer (vs. spec geek) care?
Lorin Duckman great question. I own the 85 mm 1.2 L EF Lens which I love and used exclusively until I bought the Canon R and 50mm 1.2 L for my portraits (I do not own the RF version probably a great lens also). I really love the 50mm for my portraits now because I can get up close and more personal with my subject. The one issue I had with my 85 1.2 EF is a little slow and I would get around 85% focusing accuracy with this lens. The Canon R is amazingly fast and accurate with the 50 1.2 RF I get a hit rate of 99.9%. I don’t see myself spending money on the 85 1.2 RF lens. If you end up buying one of those lens let me know how you like it.
"Rendering" is the sum total of all the individual characteristics. A synonym might be "character". "IQ" might be considered part of it but you will see the word used in sentences like : "The IQ is not the best but I just love the rendering."
Staying on EF because RF is way more expensive... less to choose from... and overall the images lack character. They're sharp and pretty, but they're almost like sterile beauty to my eye. There's nothing special about the bokeh, the vignetting it too apparent, and the older lenses have more oomf to them.
